A screen with no monitor

Access to technology should be restricted for children I will admit, I hadn’t thought much about how much access children had to the Internet and to other such technologies before December. I was having dinner with a number of kids after some group bonding, all of us joking and telling stories. Abruptly, the youngest of them all gleefully shared with us a joke she had read on a “Harry Potter” fan site. This girl, who had not yet even reached the double digits, told us a rather sexually charged joke, complete with an innocent grin on her face—and then admitted she didn’t get it.

Thank God.

The degree of access children have to the Internet and other technology is, frankly, terrifying. It isn’t something most people consider on a day-to-day basis, and it hardly seems that dangerous. But the reality is that children are not prepared for the practically endless sharing that technology has to offer. Limits need to be placed on the access children have to these avenues of information.

Beyond the obvious limitations that should be in place—such as parental guidance, safe search filters and age restrictions on web pages and subscription services—there needs to be a limit to other facets of modern technology as well. Studies have shown that children given free access to social networking sites, instant messaging and other forms of digital communication tend to have stunted social development stemming from their proportionally small amounts of face-to-face social interaction. These children are increasingly withdrawn, despite having—at times—hundreds of online “friends.”

Technology has also changed the face of real-life friendships. Where children once used to play outside, running and biking and playing sports and games together, it is now more common for them to forgo physical activity altogether in favor of someone’s video game system or their favorite TV show. Negative focus in the media leads many parents to consider these activities “safer” than allowing their children the freedom they had at their age, and as such they tend to encourage it nowadays. The days of playing outside might soon be at an end.

And, of course, obvious limitations aren’t always enough. Parental filters and safe search don’t keep everything from children. Even with filters in place, advertisements and site comments can still be inappropriate for children. An innocuous Internet search can result in disturbing imagery and commentary, despite the “safe search” box being on. And since the Internet works on the honor system, there’s no way to prove someone really is 13 or 18 or whatever age is required to gain access to a particular website.

Some could argue that these are not problems, but simply an inevitable social change stemming from the exponential growth of technology in the last few decades. Others state that children will always find ways of engaging in discouraged activities and looking up things they shouldn’t, regardless of the means available to them. While the second argument may be true, the first is a cop-out. With balance and monitoring, large-scale social change doesn’t have to be inevitable.

However, monitoring is becoming increasingly difficult. Children play games with online components, putting them screen-to-screen with strangers—sometimes adults with adult vocabularies and interests. When channel-flipping on the television, it’s more than likely that at least one channel is going to have some glorified explosions or sexual suggestions slam into the viewer’s face before it can be changed. E-mail and text message spam don’t discriminate about age; a 10-year-old girl is just as likely as everyone else to get erectile dysfunction spam on a daily basis.

Nevertheless, there are methods for parents to set limits for children in regards to technology. The simplest answers tend to be the best: Don’t give it to them. Make and stick to rules about what they can and can’t do. Double-check filters and the sites they frequent. Keep it in moderation.

That way, maybe dinner table discussions don’t need to be so awkward. ?